My first clue was when Clinton's signing statement read "Today I am pleased to sign into law S 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" (emphasis mine). You can look up the whole text yourself. I don't want to add any spin.

Now let's see, Jeff, was that before the House had referred articles of impeachment to the Senate? Or after?

If you don't think the GOP took as much advantage of Clinton between September 1998 and the end of the "trial" in the Senate as he had taken of Monica, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Besides, when had a President ever signed a bill into law and not been "pleased" about it? If they're not "pleased" about them, they either veto them or don't sign them, known in the trade as a "pocket veto."

You are a human Tilt-a-Whirl! So now Congress what? Threatened to knee cap Clinton? Pull a Tonya Harding so to speak? How about Leach? Did Phil Gramm threaten to Vince Foster him if he didn't co sponsor the bill? You are at least making my work day more enjoyable Stocking!

Jeff, you want to blame Ted Kennedy for the 1971 HMO legislation because he introduced the bill (did he?), instead of Nixon, who agreed to sign it. But, when it comes to Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999, it's Bill Clinton's fault for "happily" signing it, rather than Phil Gramm (R-Tex), Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and Thomas Bliley (R-Va), for creating it?

Does it mean that I can buy it cheaper? If so, does it mean that the doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies are going to charge less, or is somebody else going to pay for it for me? If somebody else pays for me then isn't their health care unaffordable?

Could I get an affordable car too? I almost got an affordable house but the bank said I could not afford it.

stockingfull wrote:Jeff, you want to blame Ted Kennedy for the 1971 HMO legislation because he introduced the bill (did he?), instead of Nixon, who agreed to sign it. But, when it comes to Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999, it's Bill Clinton's fault for "happily" signing it, rather than Phil Gramm (R-Tex), Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and Thomas Bliley (R-Va), for creating it?

You can't have it both ways, my good man.

Who's the Tilt-a-whirl again?

I've said many times both sides are walking mounds of fecal matter. That's why I prefer they not ha e the power of life and death over me. You are the one that says Democrats are all puppies and bunnies and sit at the right hand of Obama and all Republicans are serial killer pedophile racists. But keep supporting those D's. There's nothing quite like the look on a liberals face when they have a moment of epiphany and realize the whole government is corrupt.

stockingfull wrote:Mike, that's one of the reasons why a public-private combined system can have benefits. Sure, the pvt insurers are worried about the big gov't buyer "crowding them out" initially -- and they should be, they've been abusing the buying power they've had for the last 15-20 yrs and have gotten quite fat in the process. Real competition would have fixed that but there hasn't been any; the insurers have covered each other and the pharma biz quite well, thank you very much.

But the pvt boys will be there to offer a choice in the future, in case any of the terrible "big brother" scenarios you fret about come to pass. And you'll be able to migrate relatively easily from one plan to another.

But private insurers have become experts at delay and denial too. So it's not like there's some "ideal system" out there now that we'll be taking a hammer to.

Jon, you argue that costs have gotten out of control as a result of a lack of competition among private enterprise, i.e. a monopoly or oligopoly. You say there isn't any competition, therefore the costs got out of control. How does government control,i.e. no competition, solve problem since it eliminates the competition? Government monopolies aren't know for their efficiency.

tvb wrote:The only folks paying the medical vendors full rate these days are the uninsured - those who are most likely to be able to least afford it.

The only way you are ever going to see a true free market approach is to eliminate all private insurance leaving each person to negotiate their own rates and favors and that not going to happen.

No one pays the full rate unless they are wealthy. Mostly what happens is that the health care facility writes off the majority of the full rate. That's why the full rate exists. If for example you have no insurance and have a need for urgent surgery. The surgery won't be denied by the hospital or physician. The patient will pay what they can afford to pay and then they stop paying and goes bankrupt. The balance owed to each entity is written off at retail removing a nearly- compensating amount of taxable income for the physician and anesthesiologist. The not-for-profit takes a bite no doubt and the rest of the patients make up the difference in their fees.

stockingfull wrote:Yeah, bill, remember when it came out that one of the tobacco co's had been consulting with the Czechs or some other former iron curtain gov't on how much they'd save in retirement stipends if they didn't discourage smoking?

And you'd have to look a very long time in the tobacco industry to find a Democrat. So it sure looks like the old "shorter lives save money" thesis is being dusted off in the GOP, at least in Mike's corner of it.

It looks like I'm not the only one who is taking a look at costs associated with the inevitable:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090309/hl_nm/us_usa_dyingThis link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.

U.S. policymakers are hoping to find ways to rein in soaring healthcare costs, and researchers said end-of-life care merits a close look.

The one in 20 Medicare patients who die each year use up almost one-third of expenditures by Medicare, the government health insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

One third of expenses in the last year of life are spent in the final month, according to the report, with aggressive treatments in the final month accounting for 80 percent of those costs.

Smoke em if you got em? Now, now boys, you know that's not what I meant.

Quality of life is important but .... when the end is near.... perhaps it's more important to re-allocate resources. Because resources are limited in any society, we have to decide if we want individual choices based on income or government choices based on bureaucratic whim.